Periodic Reporting for period 1 - PopulistFP (The Populist Politics of Foreign Policy)
Reporting period: 2019-07-01 to 2020-09-30
Politics in European countries has become more polarized with issues like European integration and immigration becoming more important in domestic politics, and nationalism reasserting itself. European populist radical right (EPRR) parties with Eurosceptic and anti-globalization agendas have surged, clashing with the ideals of European integration. This has been illustrated by Brexit and by the electoral success of radical right parties across the EU. Transnational studies of European identity show a divide over what Europe stands for: whether a beacon of universal democracy and human rights, or a distinct ‘Christian’ or ‘Judeo-Christian’ civilization, defined not least in opposition to threats – real or perceived – from the Islamic world.
This project explores the impact of these changes on foreign policy debates in Britain, France and Germany. It builds on the premise that these changes greatly weaken the consensus around shared values and the national role which used to define debates around foreign policy. Rising radical right parties emphasize the notion of sovereignty, meaning the belief that no authority should supersede that of the nation state. They oppose an international ‘globalism’ shifting power to international institutions. This not only underpins opposition to European integration but a wider view of international politics. For example, they question the idea of a Western political alliance based on liberal-democratic values; they are ambivalent regarding international human rights; and they are opposed to overseas intervention where there is no direct implication for the ‘national interest’.
The rise of EPRR parties not only polarizes national debates on foreign policy, but challenges the values on which both European integration and the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy are based. The objective of this project is to determine how these new rifts, and especially the rise of radical right parties, are impacting how politicians in Europe respond to foreign policy challenges. The approach is to focus on the discourse and influence of EPRR opposition parties in Europe’s most powerful states: Germany, Britain and France.
This project explores the impact of these changes on foreign policy debates in Britain, France and Germany. It builds on the premise that these changes greatly weaken the consensus around shared values and the national role which used to define debates around foreign policy. Rising radical right parties emphasize the notion of sovereignty, meaning the belief that no authority should supersede that of the nation state. They oppose an international ‘globalism’ shifting power to international institutions. This not only underpins opposition to European integration but a wider view of international politics. For example, they question the idea of a Western political alliance based on liberal-democratic values; they are ambivalent regarding international human rights; and they are opposed to overseas intervention where there is no direct implication for the ‘national interest’.
The rise of EPRR parties not only polarizes national debates on foreign policy, but challenges the values on which both European integration and the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy are based. The objective of this project is to determine how these new rifts, and especially the rise of radical right parties, are impacting how politicians in Europe respond to foreign policy challenges. The approach is to focus on the discourse and influence of EPRR opposition parties in Europe’s most powerful states: Germany, Britain and France.
The work began in July 2019 with drafting a comprehensive literature review surveying the state of the art on the relationship between populist politics and foreign policy and especially EPRR international political world views.
The second stage was gathering textual material for a comparative analyse of international political world views of radical right parties in Britain, France and Germany through the prism of a particular case study: debates over intervention in the Syrian civil war.
French and German speaking research assistants were recruited to help gather and translate sources for a three way comparison of UKIP (UK), Front national/Rassemblement national (France), and AfD (Germany). Initial findings were presented to at Queen Mary University of London in December 2019, and a paper submitted to the journal Government and Politics in August 2020.
This research also facilitated the revision of a journal article drafted earlier: ‘Judeo-Christian civilizationism: Challenging common European foreign policy in the Israeli-Palestinian arena’. The paper was published in Mediterranean Politics in April 2020.
To bring the issues to a wider audience, in December 2019 a public panel event was organised in conjunction with the Mile End Institute: ‘Adrift? Britain's Global Role Beyond Brexit’, which was filmed by BBC Parliament.
In 2020 the work shifted to a wider study of international political world views on the radical right in Germany, Britain and France, through qualitative interviews with leading representatives of radical right parties, as well as other parties. This included fieldwork in the UK and Germany in early 2020. Though planned follow up work in Berlin and fieldwork in Paris was cancelled due to Coronvavirus, interviews continued remotely.
Initial findings were presented to a seminar at Queen Mary University of London in July 2020. Analysis of interviews took place over the summer of 2020, leading to the drafting of a paper providing a focussed comparison of international political world views within AfD and FN.
Meanwhile insights from the project informed a series of publications for non-scientific audiences, including a short essay and YouTube mini-lecture on ‘Coronavirus and Radical Right Anti-globalism’ in April 2020.
The second stage was gathering textual material for a comparative analyse of international political world views of radical right parties in Britain, France and Germany through the prism of a particular case study: debates over intervention in the Syrian civil war.
French and German speaking research assistants were recruited to help gather and translate sources for a three way comparison of UKIP (UK), Front national/Rassemblement national (France), and AfD (Germany). Initial findings were presented to at Queen Mary University of London in December 2019, and a paper submitted to the journal Government and Politics in August 2020.
This research also facilitated the revision of a journal article drafted earlier: ‘Judeo-Christian civilizationism: Challenging common European foreign policy in the Israeli-Palestinian arena’. The paper was published in Mediterranean Politics in April 2020.
To bring the issues to a wider audience, in December 2019 a public panel event was organised in conjunction with the Mile End Institute: ‘Adrift? Britain's Global Role Beyond Brexit’, which was filmed by BBC Parliament.
In 2020 the work shifted to a wider study of international political world views on the radical right in Germany, Britain and France, through qualitative interviews with leading representatives of radical right parties, as well as other parties. This included fieldwork in the UK and Germany in early 2020. Though planned follow up work in Berlin and fieldwork in Paris was cancelled due to Coronvavirus, interviews continued remotely.
Initial findings were presented to a seminar at Queen Mary University of London in July 2020. Analysis of interviews took place over the summer of 2020, leading to the drafting of a paper providing a focussed comparison of international political world views within AfD and FN.
Meanwhile insights from the project informed a series of publications for non-scientific audiences, including a short essay and YouTube mini-lecture on ‘Coronavirus and Radical Right Anti-globalism’ in April 2020.
The research found that international politics is a more central issue for European radical right political actors than is usually appreciated, and these actors articulate a coherent challenge to liberal internationalism which goes beyond extreme nationalism, racism or xenophobia. A key central thread unites all the EPRR actors studied: their central nativist commitment to preserving the ethnic integrity and autonomy of the national community is inseparable from their belief in a bordered world of sovereign nation states.
Moreover, foreign policy issues provide populist opportunities for radical right parties to challenge the coherence and integrity of mainstream parties of government. Radical right political actors frame themselves as defending the rights and identity of the ethnonational community from an international ‘globalist’ agenda, which includes liberal elites in their own countries. The ‘globalist threat’ is characterised by multilateral regimes drawing power away from sovereign states, especially with respect to borders controlling migration and trade.
‘Globalism’ is also characterised by Western military intervention against sovereign states (e.g. Iraq, Libya, Syria). Actions taken in the name of human rights or democracy are said to have caused uncontrolled migration and facilitated Islamist extremism. The domestic unpopularity of these interventions provides an opportunity for radical right parties to align with the majority and challenge the integrity and coherence of policies pursued by governments involving all mainstream parties.
More broadly, radical right actors share a suspicion of both the US and EU as engines of globalism, as well as deep and growing concern at Chinese trade practices deemed to undermine domestic capacity in critical industries. They also tend to show a sympathy for Putin’s Russia driven by various factors including the perception of Russia as an ally in resisting the ‘globalist’ threat to sovereign national communities.
Yet the research finds significant variations within and between the cases studied. The extent to which an EPRR parties challenge mainstream rivals on foreign policy varies according to national political culture and the specific political context. For example, the more military intervention has public backing, the less incentive there is for the EPRR to take a clear stance either way.
Moreover, there is variation within parties as to the extent to which its representatives subscribe to populist conspiracy theories about the hidden purposes and agendas of liberal elites. Whilst some representatives subscribe to the most implausible conspiracy theories, others articulate views closer to the mainstream right.
As this data is further analysed and disseminated, the insights will deepen the understanding of these political forces for both scholars and practitioners of European politics.
Moreover, foreign policy issues provide populist opportunities for radical right parties to challenge the coherence and integrity of mainstream parties of government. Radical right political actors frame themselves as defending the rights and identity of the ethnonational community from an international ‘globalist’ agenda, which includes liberal elites in their own countries. The ‘globalist threat’ is characterised by multilateral regimes drawing power away from sovereign states, especially with respect to borders controlling migration and trade.
‘Globalism’ is also characterised by Western military intervention against sovereign states (e.g. Iraq, Libya, Syria). Actions taken in the name of human rights or democracy are said to have caused uncontrolled migration and facilitated Islamist extremism. The domestic unpopularity of these interventions provides an opportunity for radical right parties to align with the majority and challenge the integrity and coherence of policies pursued by governments involving all mainstream parties.
More broadly, radical right actors share a suspicion of both the US and EU as engines of globalism, as well as deep and growing concern at Chinese trade practices deemed to undermine domestic capacity in critical industries. They also tend to show a sympathy for Putin’s Russia driven by various factors including the perception of Russia as an ally in resisting the ‘globalist’ threat to sovereign national communities.
Yet the research finds significant variations within and between the cases studied. The extent to which an EPRR parties challenge mainstream rivals on foreign policy varies according to national political culture and the specific political context. For example, the more military intervention has public backing, the less incentive there is for the EPRR to take a clear stance either way.
Moreover, there is variation within parties as to the extent to which its representatives subscribe to populist conspiracy theories about the hidden purposes and agendas of liberal elites. Whilst some representatives subscribe to the most implausible conspiracy theories, others articulate views closer to the mainstream right.
As this data is further analysed and disseminated, the insights will deepen the understanding of these political forces for both scholars and practitioners of European politics.